Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:47, 30 November 2006 editAtionSong (talk | contribs)785 edits reply← Previous edit Revision as of 02:01, 30 November 2006 edit undoDoug Bell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,585 edits reply to AtionSong re: sockpuppetryNext edit →
Line 116: Line 116:
******* This is pointless road to head down. An anonymous IP can nominate an article for deletion, and that doesn't undermine the merits that such a deletion may have. Please stay focused on the discussion here, otherwise I might assume that you are implying that my previous nomination was funny also. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ******* This is pointless road to head down. An anonymous IP can nominate an article for deletion, and that doesn't undermine the merits that such a deletion may have. Please stay focused on the discussion here, otherwise I might assume that you are implying that my previous nomination was funny also. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
******** ''"This is pointless road to head down."'' That depends on whether this continues as simply a discussion on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on. -] 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ******** ''"This is pointless road to head down."'' That depends on whether this continues as simply a discussion on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on. -] 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
********* If there is a legitimate suspicion of sockpuppetry then it would be best to confront that head on, as Yuser31415 , otherwise I suggest that continuing with innuendo would be bad faith and possible incivility. Since nobody has said ''who'' the suspected sockpuppeteer is, I'm not sure I understand your point. If you suspect actual sockpuppetry, then may I suggest you take it to ]. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
**** '']'' is, quite simply, attacking the person instead of the argument he or she is putting forth. That's '''''precisely''''' what you're doing. &mdash; ], the sneering all-knowing deletionist, who of course might be mistaken about the personal attack thing <small>(])</small> 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) **** '']'' is, quite simply, attacking the person instead of the argument he or she is putting forth. That's '''''precisely''''' what you're doing. &mdash; ], the sneering all-knowing deletionist, who of course might be mistaken about the personal attack thing <small>(])</small> 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment:''' For those arguing that the poem is a waste of server space, this page is now larger than the poem itself, making the nomination for deletion more of a strain on the server than the article. -] 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) * '''Comment:''' For those arguing that the poem is a waste of server space, this page is now larger than the poem itself, making the nomination for deletion more of a strain on the server than the article. -] 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:01, 30 November 2006

User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination)

Also see the first nomination.

See similar MfD Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time.... and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Once upon a time...

  • Delete. I renominate this page for deletion because I believe its violation of existing policies is rather egregious and was not given adequate coverage during its last nomination. Specifically, I cite the following:
    • The WP:NOT policy states, "Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "ersonal essays or logs" (cite).
    • Later, that policy also states "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" (cite).
    • That policy also states "our user page is not yours. It is a part of Misplaced Pages, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion" (cite).
    • The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages," and then goes on to state unrelated content includes:
      • "xtensive discussion not related to Misplaced Pages"
      • "ther non-encyclopedic material"
      • "ames, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'"
      • "ommunications with people uninvolved with the project or related work"
  • Because of the violation of the above policies and established guidelines, I strongly urge this article user subpage's deletion. — Whedonette (ping) 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Addition: Some rudimentary calculations outlined in a comment below indicates that the article up for MfD has the ability to consume, if carried to completion, approximately five (continuous, 24/7) months' worth of editing that could instead be devoted towards what Misplaced Pages is truly supposed to be about: building an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Per User:Elkman below, "Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 hours to complete ... There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem ... If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend and do something other than Misplaced Pages editing?" Yuser31415 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages has no policy against editors taking time off to do whatever they like. Obviously. It does have policies about what its own resources can be used for, as quoted in the original nomination. — Whedonette (ping) 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So you've killed your own argument that Wikipedians are "wasting their time on a doomed project". You've just stated Wikipedians can do whatever they like with their time, which is true. Your only argument left is that the page violates policy. Yuser31415 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The straw man argument you and Elkman are mounting attempts to link time spent doing things external to Misplaced Pages with time spent writing the poem. The flaw in that is that time spent writing the poem is not being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent outside of Misplaced Pages, doing scuba diving and such; the time spent writing the poem is being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent doing things on Misplaced Pages, such as contributing to article namespace, that would have had a beneficial effect towards the goal of writing an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - please remember WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. It is also good ettiquette to notify the user in question on their talk page. Thank you. Yuser31415 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The WP:IAR policy you linked to states, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." I very obviously don't think that this page improves or maintains Misplaced Pages. The snowball clause you linked to states, "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." I don't think this applies here; the former discussion arrived at no consensus. Finally, I will notify the user in question now. Thanks. — Whedonette (ping) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Please realize that just because everything in policy says this page should go, it is not deterring any users from editing. In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. If people don't like the poem, they don't need to have anything to do with it. It is not being disruptive, it is merely a Misplaced Pages user's collaborative project. However, I do think it would be better off in a subpage of the Sandbox - for example, "Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/World's longest poem". Yuser31415 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. Looking at the talk page, the truth of that statement is rather doubtful. Plus, here's some idle calculations. The page states 5,974 words in 701 lines. That's an average of 8.52 words per line. Divide that by your goal of 1.9 million, and you have 222,949 lines to write. Let's say a minute per line — a conservative estimate given time to come up with the line and then the time spent to edit it. That's 222,949 minutes = 3,715 hours = 154 days = 5 months. So we're talking an extremely conservative estimate of 5 continuous months of editing, with no stop for sleep or food, of editing time spent to create this project. Even dividing the manpower among, say, five editors yields a continuous month's worth of five editors' editing lost to a nonsense project. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Strong keep - while this 'poem' clearly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia, it doesn't hurt it either. Per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW I suggest putting this page into a subpage of the Sandbox. Yuser31415 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons I nominated this the first time. I think it was a flawed decision to have kept it the first time (not the closing admin's, but rather the majority of the keep !votes rationale), although I think it would have been preferrable to wait a little longer before renominating it. --Doug Bell  21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Interesting, perhaps, but not of any encyclopedic value. I'd also like to echo some of the above comments in saying that I can't see how WP:IAR or WP:SNOW relate to this issue.--Fyre2387 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Alright, once again, I am biased, because this is my project, but may I direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:Department of Fun, please. This is no different than any of those pages, except I created it as a user subpage instead of a project page (although, I would note, some pages are also user subpages 1, 2). This page is no different than any of those. If it's the userpage thing that's bothering people, then this can be moved to a project page like the other Department of Fun pages. Why is this any different than the other Department of Fun pages? -AtionSong 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument I'm about to give holds no water usually, but for user subpages, it is appropriate. Is it hurting anything? -Amarkov edits 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is hurting anything. Look at the amount of people involved in it, and how deeply they're involved in it. This is not an idle endeavour for these editors. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not hurting anything. You argue that it ties up valuable editors and editing time; I counter, ho w do you know any editors at all would go the the articles if this page is deleted? It is more likely, in my opinion, that they would go to other Dept. of Fun projects or off WP altogether. If there is no fun to be had on WP, then the edit counts would drop dramatically from editors leaving. Alethiophile23 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If an editor doesn't enjoy the work associated with writing on any one of the sheer universe of topics that the 1.5 million articles in Misplaced Pages articlespace cover, and thus derives a sense of fun only out of contributing to Department of Fun projects, then I daresay Misplaced Pages is not the most optimal environment from which they can be deriving their fun. In any case, if an editor active in the poem goes to another Department of Fun project, it will hopefully be one much more finite in length, without quite so much potential for becoming such a massive sink of manpower. If an editor active in the poem leaves Misplaced Pages altogether, that is his or her decision, of course, but such a decision would reflect on the departing editor's sense of priorities. If a 1.9-million-word poem was the most important thing to them on Misplaced Pages, then, again, in such a case Misplaced Pages might not have been the most optimal environment from which said departing editor could have been deriving their fun. — Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-argued nomination. I fail to see how this is anything other than entertainment and how this is related to Misplaced Pages. To Amarkov, a page exclusively for non-Misplaced Pages related conversation "doesn't hurt" either, but well we have had one such page deleted not too long ago. Kimchi.sg 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm put off by the fact it was relisted again in a matter of weeks. If this result is keep, will you relsit it again? And again? And again after that too? The tribe has spoken, let it be for a while. So I was going to vote delete, but because the nominator's sheer despise for this page forces him to relist it only a few weeks later, I'm hesistant to vote in favour of deletion. This I feel, is an abuse of the proccess - simply relist it again & again if you don't get your way. This page isn't really hurting anything. Spawn Man 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, such a project, if formulated right, could be transformed into a poetry learning project over at wikiversity. I'm always on the lookout to see if I can find stuff like this to move over.--Rayc 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiversity. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Yuser31415 Yao Ziyuan 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Rayc. This does not belong on Misplaced Pages, even in the userspace. That said, I'd hate to see the work be deleted outright.--Isotope23 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unlike Esperanza, this is kept in userspace, promotes harmonious editing and collaboration, and creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute. If someone wants to delete the Department of Fun, I'd vote delete, but you'll ahve a problem given Jimbo's a member... 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk * contribs) .
    • Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites of "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute" with proof as to same. And, for that matter, I have yet to hear one person's defense as to how said page isn't a massively flagrant violation of multiple Misplaced Pages policies ... aside from the WP:IAR catchall, which really doesn't apply as this isn't a project whose intent is to improve Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell were you when Esperanza was being MfDed? I am totally for deleting all and any unnecessary Wikipedian projects, including Esperanza, Concordia, and the Department of Fun, but I fail to see how a collaborative project merits deletion. You have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line, and you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem. I do not see how this detracts from editing the encyclopedia. In addition, the poem is sortof about Wikipedian history, so it not only teaches new editors what has already happened here, but it creates community. Editing community cohesion is good. You need to severely calm down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell ... I can definitely see now how it promotes harmonious editing! :-) — Whedonette (ping) 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Whoa now, I'm not sure Whedonette is the one needing to chill out here. Whedonette asked a perfectly reasonable question regarding the issue and I don't think you needed to bite her head off for asking. As to your claims that good editing skills and prose are required to create a line in the poem...well, that seems a bit of a stretch, especially as a rationale to keep the poem. I think ability to write a poem is not particularly relevant to creating good encyclopedic articles and that any editing skills necessary are better honed contributing, but YMMV. --Doug Bell  17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I consider aggressively demanding "Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites" of someone who had made a single comment overly hyped up. I have never edited the poem, and do not intend to, but I have no problem with other people doing so, and do not understand why Whedonette has taken such a harsh dislike to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, here's the problem: you tell us that the poem "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute." To me, those are pleasantly phrased sound bites. Until you began blasting at me, after the "what the hell" stuff, that "ou have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line" and "you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem," all that we were given in support of your keep vote were rather prettily phrased nouns and verbs. And although a porn actress knows how to assume the role of a character and how to be aware of where the camera is, I wouldn't call her ready to play Ophelia in Hamlet. Similarly, the supposedly "good editing skills" and "prose composition" 'skills' required to write a goofy limerick aren't very translatable to writing Misplaced Pages articles (and, BTW, prose != poetry — "literary medium distinguished from poetry" ). That was a weak argument ... at best. — Whedonette (ping) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • My vote stands. Harrassing me isn't going to change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Look Whedonette, that's not the point. Apart from policy, why do you feel the page should be deleted? If you don't like it, don't go near it. If someone wants to spend their time on a harmless project, let them. What do you have against these people or their project? It's just a Department of Fun poem, and surely one poem isn't going to hurt 1,506,611 whole Misplaced Pages articles? It's peoples' choice. If they wish to spend their time on this, then let them do so, although if it could be changed to become more educational that would be great. Yuser31415 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Apart from policy? Policy is the cornerstone of this encyclopedic work. Process and policy (and guidelines) prevent this place from becoming chaos.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Policy isn't something that should be set aside in this argument. To illustrate by exaggeration: "Listen, aside from the fact that I ax-murdered your husband, what do you have against me?" The core issue is policy. But to answer your question nonetheless, essentially, I believe that the page should be deleted for the feelings and reasonings that originally, presumably, inspired the policies and guidelines cited: the overriding purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, and things that subtract, slow down, and take away from that purpose do not have a place here. This poem is a frivolous and yet very huge energy suck, and, as the calculations show, would conservatively take a good 3,715 manhours of editing. That makes this project quite different than games of chess or checkers which were, in and of themselves, deleted when Esperanza's Coffee Lounge was. If those were considered timewasters and deleted, this meets that same standard of timewasting and multiplies it by a factor of a few thousand. Further, since the "people" do not own the Wikimedia servers, it is not the "people"'s choice — it is the Wikimedia Foundation's choice, as outlined in the policies and guidelines formulated by those who actually wish to compose an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki somewhere, no idea where. It would be a shame to lose the info here, but it isn't relevant to Misplaced Pages. --ais523 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - or maybe send to Wikia?. WP:NOT a place for social networking. Silly and distracting. Moreschi 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Moreschi! Could you give me an example of how it's destracting? Cheers! Yuser31415 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It would be far better if editors spent their writing talents actually improving the encyclopaedia for a change, rather than time-wasting on this nonsense. Quite apart from the multitude of policies this thing violates. Moreschi 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree, but just deleting a page is not going to stop them from wasting time. All it's going to do is induce bitterness on the part of the editors who've spent such a long time on it. Nobody would sign up if we said they had to have a fixed template on their page that didn't violate any policies. To an extent, a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Yuser31415 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If they wish to waste their time, they can do so on an external website - just not on Misplaced Pages, where it distracts other users from editing the encyclopaedia. And no, actually, per WP:USER you can't put basically whatever you like in your userspace. There are rules and they should be respected. What is more, I think I have stated my views on this at quite an adequate length, and I'm afraid I have better things to do with my life than bicker all day and night at this MfD - like actually write some articles! Moreschi 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Here's the problem with that statement: you don't own your userpage. That's outlined both by policy and guideline (which I cited in my second nomination). Therefore, no, people can't put what they like on it. And, seperately, if you don't consider a 1.9-million-word poem "excessive," I marvel to wonder what the scope of something you might find excessive would be. — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • A 1.9 million word poem is excessive, but it shows no sign of getting that large. Yuser31415 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • So you find the page's stated goal to be excessive, and furthermore believe that the editors will not reach their stated goal. Illuminating. — Whedonette (ping) 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                • So if the editors wish to waste their time on an already doomed project, why not let them? Yuser31415 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Because (a) that's not what Misplaced Pages or its resources are for; (b) it's not a useful project, it's frivolous and useless entertainment that won't even — as you admit — succeed at its intended purpose; and (c) they could be contributing manhours towards articles and useful environments that have little or no chance of being "doomed." — Whedonette (ping) 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • B. and C. are irrelevant as they apply to the editors in question; A. is the most important. May I alert you to Misplaced Pages:Don't_worry_about_performance. I do think it should be in a subpage of the sandbox, but nobody seems to be listening. Why should this page be nominated for deletion when the Department of Fun isn't? That seems silly to me. And the Department of Fun is an established group, as far as I know. Yuser31415 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • With regards to your counterargument to point (a), your cite of the intended page does not support your cause, as the page's stated caveat starts off by saying, "When making some improvement to Misplaced Pages's content ... " This is very obviously not an improvement of Misplaced Pages's content. Therefore, point (a) stands. With regards to your dismissal of (b) and (c) as irrelevant, you write off the very underlying arguments of the policies and guidelines that were cited above and forbid such entertainment-only subpages as the poem in question. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. It is not a place for social networking. It is not a place to do fun little entertaining projects. It is an online encyclopedia. Free webhosts, social networking, and fun little entertaining projects are, in and of themselves, not unworthy things; they deserve homes. This is not the place for same. — Whedonette (ping) 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well detailed nomination; this page is a failure of WP:NOT and WP:USER--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with the nomination and WP:USER and WP:NOT#USER. Barno 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the page in question could be moved to a subpage of the Sandbox, ie. Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/World's longest poem. Yuser31415 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, it is in userspace and it doesn't hurt to keep it.__Seadog 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Department of Fun has been around for over two years on Misplaced Pages. It is basically a collection of things that "simply take up space, have no encyclopedic value, and take away the time of editors from doing other things" (arguments previously stated in the thread). So far, in two years, nobody has thought that it posed a threatening problem to the Misplaced Pages community. If it's the user subpage thing that's bothering people, I would be happy to move in to a project page at Misplaced Pages:World's Longest Poem, just like all the other projects in the Department of Fun. -AtionSong 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously delete a project whose explicit goal is to produce 1.9 million words of nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. When the community considers a page for deletion, the decision is made by policy. As such, from WP:USER (the section regarding "What can I not have on my user page?"), I quote: Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia." Srose (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, just like to add that the transwiki option is still on the table. I hope in the future colaberative projects can be moved over to wikiversity without a deletion debate, just like dic defs or books.--Rayc 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that the Department of Fun has not been put up at MfD.
Yet. Moreschi 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep a)You never give up, do you? That's not a compliment. We just did this a few weeks ago. I voted Keep then, and now I'm doing the same. b)This is not a meaningful MfD. We did this a few weeks ago and received no consensus. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that it will produce any different result. c)WP:IAR states that if a rule is preventing improvement to WP, we should ignore it. d)Your main argument seems to be that it distracts from other editors' time editing articles. Per my comments above, which I will repeat for those who are too lazy to scroll up, we don't know that deleting this will get any editors onto article space. I contribute to articles on a regular basis, ditto with the poem, and I don't find them mutually exclusive, which leads me into e)There is no proof that this is distracting anyone anyway. Alethiophile23 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure which "you" you are referring to. I just wanted to point out that WP:IAR has nothing to do with deleting rules. It has to do with ignoring rules, and not frivolously, but rather when there is a need to ignore rules. I haven't seen any claim here on this page of a need to ignore the rules. --Doug Bell  20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if this commentary was directed to me, so I would make the following observations in response to your vote. (a) I note that I am not the individual who nominated this the first time. That would be Mr. Bell. This being my first attempt, this isn't a question of "never giving up." Furthermore, I would request that you not insult your fellow editors and make your arguments civilly. (b) The closing administrator, when making a decision, should assess consensus not in a straight up-or-down count but based on the weight of the arguments presented on each side. In my own opinion, those believing the article should be kept have not been able to cite policy to support their views, whereas there is an overwhelming amount of policy supporting the position of deleting this article. (c) Indeed, WP:IAR states, specifically, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." I do not think an argument can effectively be made that contributions to a 1.9-million-word poem composed of utter nonsense in any way improves Misplaced Pages or assists in maintaining it. Therefore, I don't believe WP:IAR assists your argument. (d) I replied to this where you laid out your argument above. (e) Proof that it distracts editors is not required (and, indeed, given that one cannot read minds, is an unfair burden to require) — the proof that it violates multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is already present. — Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Again: WP:IAR. I am not referring to users whose only priority on WP is this poem; I am referring to users--like me--who are under a substantial amount of stress and would probably leave if they didn't have at least one way to simply have fun. Misplaced Pages, or another wiki, is the only way that a project such as this could be carried out. Free wikis such as PBWiki are not a good option--they are significantly disadvantaged in usability. Therefore, this page must be on wikipedia for it to have any real meaning. And anyway, your main arguments are thus:
        1. It violates policy, and;
        2. It distracts editors.
      • WP:IAR takes care of the first point; my already-stated arguments take care of the second. In my view, you don't have a case. Also, I'm sorry I was uncivil about "never giving up"; that was mean-spirited. My arguments stand, however. Alethiophile23 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with any of the premises in your statement: I do not believe that this poem improves Misplaced Pages or assists in its maintenance, and therefore, WP:IAR would not be an acceptable argument in defense of keeping it. Additionally, I do not believe that Misplaced Pages is the only acceptable venue in which this poem can be constructed. Finally, I am sincerely sorry that you find yourself under a substantial amount of stress. However, Misplaced Pages as an institution should not be responsible for providing for the relief of its editors' stress, given that there are a plethora of venues and ways in which an editor can relax themselves, whether it is reading a book, watching a television show, playing an online game, engaging in a sport, or what have you. — Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whedonette's contributions show nothing but two months of nominating various items for MfD - aside from wondering why this champion of the Wiki never actually edits in the article namespace herself, I cannot help but wonder where this phenomenal grasp of Wikipolicy came from, given this person signed up and immediately leapt in Mfding? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus offers no real defense as to the topic currently being discussed. Attacking the person instead of the argument is what's soured a lot of people on politics; I find it equally as distasteful here. — Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I find it distasteful that you insist on arguing with every person who has voted keep, but whatever. I find it somewhat interesting that you decided to sneer at my comment rather than deny my implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm going to see if tehre are any blocked users known for deletionism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I was asked that question directly by another person on my talk page, and answered it there. I honestly don't think it's relevant to this discussion — or, for that matter, that I should be indulging your discourtesy — but, no, this is the only name I edit Misplaced Pages under. But a sockpuppet would say the precise same thing, so there's no real way to satisfactorily answer that charge, is there? No one would ever say, "Yes, I'm a sockpuppet." So a "no" answer can either be treated with belief or disbelief. — Whedonette (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to say that an ad hominem attack here is only going to undermine the strength of your other statements. Please be civil and stay focused on the subject of this page. --Doug Bell  22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing here. I am expressing concern that this apparent all-knowing deletionist hasn't any real edits. If that's an ad hominem attack then you're a mushroom. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Please remain calm and do not make personal attacks (calling other a mushroom). Doug, Dev has a point. If Whedonette has gained her knowledge of policies by editing under a sockpuppet account before creating this one, sockpuppet vote stacking is serious offense. Yuser31415 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Given that the mushroom accusation was brought with the conditional of me making a personal attack, and I was not making a personal attack, I wasn't actually calling Doug a mushroom. However, I have gone further into Whedonette's background and she has 109 edits, three of which are in the main namespace and 65 of which are nominating and defending MfDs. There's something funny going on here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
            • See . Yuser31415 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
              • This is pointless road to head down. An anonymous IP can nominate an article for deletion, and that doesn't undermine the merits that such a deletion may have. Please stay focused on the discussion here, otherwise I might assume that you are implying that my previous nomination was funny also. —Doug Bell  01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                • "This is pointless road to head down." That depends on whether this continues as simply a discussion on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on. -AtionSong 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • If there is a legitimate suspicion of sockpuppetry then it would be best to confront that head on, as Yuser31415 did, otherwise I suggest that continuing with innuendo would be bad faith and possible incivility. Since nobody has said who the suspected sockpuppeteer is, I'm not sure I understand your point. If you suspect actual sockpuppetry, then may I suggest you take it to WP:SSP. —Doug Bell  02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ad hominem is, quite simply, attacking the person instead of the argument he or she is putting forth. That's precisely what you're doing. — Whedonette, the sneering all-knowing deletionist, who of course might be mistaken about the personal attack thing (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those arguing that the poem is a waste of server space, this page is now larger than the poem itself, making the nomination for deletion more of a strain on the server than the article. -AtionSong 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Then we better delete it quick so we don't have to go through this again. :-) Actually, the issue is not space, it is on drawing a line on which activities belong here and which don't. This discuss here will not only decide the fate of this page, but also serves as a forum for users to express their views on where the line should be drawn. --Doug Bell  22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding editor productivity: Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 editor-hours (or five editor-months) to complete. There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem. Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Misplaced Pages editors put a certain amount of time into editing? As an example, I spent a weekend last month at Wazee Lake near Black River Falls, Wisconsin, doing some scuba diving. Instead of working on articles like Antoine Auguelle, Ard Godfrey or Battle of Birch Coulee, I was instead experiencing problems with buoyancy and blowing O-rings. I lost some 56 hours or so of Misplaced Pages editing time in that weekend, with nothing but an Advanced Open Water Diver certification to show for it. If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend and do something other than Misplaced Pages editing? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)